Strawman. All cars pollute, yes, but SUVs pollute more and burn more than that tiny 3 cyl, and most of them are driven by people who have no need for them. Just because all cars pollute does NOT mean they all pollute equally, and the tiny 3 cyl has much less environmental impact than the SUV. While not driving a SUV doesn't make you a champion of the environment, it does mean you're doing less damage than those who do. Care to argue more?
You've completely ignpored the point. Walton does not control the entire fortune that was attributed to him. Rather, he controls 17.5 billion of it, and other members of his family control the other portions. Gates himself controls the entire fortune on his own. The Walton _family_ is richer than Gates is on his own, but Gates is richer than Sam Walton himself. It's not an issue of old vs. new money, but rather an issue of how much of the counted money the man truly owns.
In reference to you sig, I understand your point. However, economics deals with the flow of money, and a mother at home raising her children is not part of the earning-spending cycle, and that is why she is considered to be out of the job market, and therefor the "real" economy. No sane economist would doubt her value to the economic system, but she is not part of the system that is studied.
You're absolutely right, but that doesn't discount what he said. He meant that Gates was not confusing, but that he was hoping the other companies would. The "confuser" in this case would be the paper that MS wrote, and there are two confusers.
He's not the richest man, that ranking took into account all family wealth, not just his own personal wealth. Next time you want to be a smartass, notice the word "smart" in it.
So a parent could dictate the child shall not eat? No, the benefit of the child should be paramount, not the parent's will nor any vicarious desire to make the child beautiful.
No, he's not saying people should express themselves differently, he's saying people shouldn't try to control what he says. Big difference; you reached too far with that. The people are free to say they wish he wouldn't use those words, but not to go to any length to try to FORCE him not to. Next time, engage brain, THEN use it.
The argument was initially over DirectX in its entirety, then one poster said Direct3D to attack the OpenGL issue. DirectX is still valid in this argument.
What if your employee was very good and liked working at Jaguar, but wanted a sporty little two-seater, like the SLK-320? That's not even competing with your comapny, as Jaguar only makes sedans. Would you force all your employees to drive large, expensive Jaguars regardless of their desires?
Or what about random taste? I personally don't like how Jaguars look, but some people do. Would that make me a bad employee?
Yeah, doing that has nothing to do with DeCSS. I rip them just fine with DVDCatalyst and encode with FlaskMPEG. As long as a DVD player is installed, it works fine. And I'm the second biggest movie pirate at RPI.
What they claim as the intent is one thing, there is no reason every copulation must be "open to new life." That leads to over-population. Abstentation is NOT a viable answer, it's denying human nature. The end result of the person you're responding to's claim is accurate: that the Church's rulings have the effect of massive population growth.
Your response attempts to say "No, that's not what the Church wants..." but you are unable to deny it; you claim that allowing abstinence means that the Church does not encourage large numbers of children. That is naive beyond belief. You talk of the danger of speaking without background knowledge, yet what the poster stated was accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
-----------------------
If you want too act smart, be smarter.
-----------------------
-----------------------
Never argue with me.
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
Um, inflation would make that 360 LESS than the 350, not pull it in the other direction.
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
Or what about random taste? I personally don't like how Jaguars look, but some people do. Would that make me a bad employee?
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
Your response attempts to say "No, that's not what the Church wants..." but you are unable to deny it; you claim that allowing abstinence means that the Church does not encourage large numbers of children. That is naive beyond belief. You talk of the danger of speaking without background knowledge, yet what the poster stated was accurate.
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------